[aurelian]

>Poor are poor not just because they don't have money but also because they are unable to get out of it. They have to go through unspeakable ordeal just to get one meal a day and this places enormous cognitive load on the entire family.

That seems like it should be true intuitively, but if it were true, you'd expect higher benefit levels to correlate with higher rates of getting out of poverty. The data points to the opposite happening.

For example: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_17.htm

[Daishiman]

That study is the complete opposite of the experience of Nordic and Northern European countries with very strong welfare programs and very high class mobility.

Methinks that given the political bias of the study and the fact that it takes a particularly period for the American economy, that there's not much to learn from it.

Also, the fact that single mothers who were on welfare are now working is not actually a good indicator for me. I want the single mothers to have to raise their children in decent environments though maternal leave and good family policies, instead of seeing them work full-time out of necessity.

[StandardFuture]

The institute seems to have a political agenda/bias.

[0] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/manhattan-institute-po...

[1] http://www.manhattan-institute.org/southparkconservatives/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manhattan_Institute_for_Po...

[maigret]

I think welfare is only one tool against poverty, far from being the whole solution. Actually nordish countries have many more tools against equality, like health coverage and free education. Welfare, even in those countries, is the last "fallback", nothing more. So the study is really biased on the people with the most problems. No surprise they don't get out of it well.

[hrktb]

That's interesting, could you please share the data ?